Cat wrote:You are right and wrong at the same time. Translocation and duplication take place - fact. This can result in a new trait - fact. However, we talking about the SAME (already present in the gene pool) DNA material.

"This extraneous DNA, if further modified can become an entirely new gene that provides the organism with a new trait. " - Now this part is deduced and while it makes a lot of sense, it is only theoretical. There is no direct (experimental) proof of it.

Your are just wrong. There is tons of evidence. See Taylor, J.S. and J. Raes. 2004. Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas. Ann. Rev. Genet. 38:615-643. This paper is nearly ten years old and only took me a minute to find! Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't mean that it isn't....

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."Theodosius Dobzhansky"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."Anonymous

thoffnagle wrote:Your are just wrong. There is tons of evidence. See Taylor, J.S. and J. Raes. 2004. Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas. Ann. Rev. Genet. 38:615-643. This paper is nearly ten years old and only took me a minute to find! Just because you don't want it to be true, doesn't mean that it isn't....

Your quote of this paper is precisely what is wrong with science today. It has not a shred of PROFF of anything. It is simply a summary of other people CONCLUSIONS. You need to provide FACTS of direct evidence and, as far as I know, they do not exist...

wbla3335 wrote:I'm going to jump in here to get something clear. Cat, are you claiming that there is absolutely NO evidence for the spontaneous appearance of ANY new gene with a NOVEL function in ANY genome?

Not exactly. I am saying that there is no DIRECT, reproducible evidence of it. You can deduce "new gene" events based on archeological data. However, such conclusions are based on quite a few assumptions which are not based on any facts whatsoever...

Thank you for your reply, but my question required a yes or no answer. By replying with "not exactly", I still do not know what your point is. What would be direct, reproducible evidence for the spontaneous appearance of a new gene with a novel function in a genome? And how can archaeology deduce "new gene events"?

wbla3335 wrote:Thank you for your reply, but my question required a yes or no answer. By replying with "not exactly", I still do not know what your point is. What would be direct, reproducible evidence for the spontaneous appearance of a new gene with a novel function in a genome? And how can archaeology deduce "new gene events"?

My point is that something inferred from archeological data is given same weight as direct experimental evidence and then misrepresented as fact.

To give you an example:

You are presented with a black box. You cannot see what is inside that box. Than you hear "meow, meow" coming from it... You DEDUCE that you have a cat in the box. Than you open the box and find an iPod playing "meow, meow"...

So, as you can see in this example sound reasoning does not always lead to the right conclusion.

It's an example of archaeological evidence. When some gene found in today's human genome in not found in the genome of ancestor (mummy), it is said to be a "new gene" gained = indirect evidence.

I quickly scanned through the article (having read it before) and found no reference to what you are claiming. The closest thing that could have led to your misunderstanding was the bit about lactase persistence. If this is what you think refers to the appearance of a new gene, look up definitions of "allele" and "gene", then read up on allele frequencies within populations. If there's something else I missed, please point me to it (page, paragraph).

It's an example of archaeological evidence. When some gene found in today's human genome in not found in the genome of ancestor (mummy), it is said to be a "new gene" gained = indirect evidence.

I quickly scanned through the article (having read it before) and found no reference to what you are claiming. The closest thing that could have led to your misunderstanding was the bit about lactase persistence. If this is what you think refers to the appearance of a new gene, look up definitions of "allele" and "gene", then read up on allele frequencies within populations. If there's something else I missed, please point me to it (page, paragraph).

Please, read my post carefully. I gave this reference as an example of archeological evidence in general. I did not give it as an example of new gene discovery. This article gives you good details about DNA isolation and sequencing problems that arise with old samples...

Nice try, Cat. I had asked for an example of archaeological evidence of "new gene events". You provided a link to an article that you claimed provided evidence of "a "new gene" gained". Please read your own posts more carefully. I hope you at least now know the difference between genes and alleles.

Nice try, Cat. I had asked for an example of archaeological evidence of "new gene events". You provided a link to an article that you claimed provided evidence of "a "new gene" gained". Please read your own posts more carefully. I hope you at least now know the difference between genes and alleles.

Saying this a few more times would not make it true. Your post only proves my point that people want to hear what they want to hear and not what is actually being said. See my original post below:

It's an example of archaeological evidence. When some gene found in today's human genome in not found in the genome of ancestor (mummy), it is said to be a "new gene" gained = indirect evidence.

While you asked for archeological evidence of gene gain, I provided general reference. The gene gain would be ascertained by some other research group based on data from this research - it's not like they are going to re-sequence it on their own. I think you are fully capable to google yourself to find what you are looking for.

P.S. I know difference between genes and alleles probably better than you do. I also know that it has nothing to do with this conversation.